Did anyone else see Kuchinich's actual votes decreasing?

[Proud_Lefty]

When my son pointed out to me that Kuchinich had over 1,800 votes and within a minute, it dropped down to a little over a thousand. It started slowly going up again and then dropped again to 900. I even played it back on my dvr to make sure we weren't imagining anything and sure enough, they kept dropping his votes whenever he started getting up to 3%. Not a word about it anywhere. So are our votes really going to count this election?

[LostinVA]

1. Umm

[Zorra]

2. Yes. n/t

[Bryan Buchan]

3. What network channet

I came home from dinner and saw them rising steady after 1200

[Proud_Lefty]

12. CNN

[dweller]

4. keep taping!

dp

[KittyWampus]

5. Diebold tabulators?

[KittyWampus]

6. Diebold tabulators?

[Kucinich4America]

7. Got some screen caps?

Get this evidence online and post it everywhere

[HughMoran]

8. typos

...they happened for all of the candidates tonight - and in every election I've ever watched.

[loudsue]

23. Only where privately programmed, commercially owned machines are used.

Did anybody notice that Edwards had 17% of the vote AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT after the returns started coming in? EXACTLY 17% percent.

The programming on the electronic voting machine tabulators was clickin' right along.

They get more & more transparent with every election.

[KoKo]

26. At the beginning with only 4% reporting it was 17 and then at 92% voting...the same 17..

I hope someone will check this out. It seems odd to me...but then math/statistics was never my thing...

[loudsue]

28. I hope they check it out, too, KoKo. It made NO SENSE, except

that someone told the guy programming the machines that he was polling at 17%, so 17% it was. ALL. NIGHT. LONG.

[KoKo]

32. I'm posting later...and they are discounting Edwards Tally saying it's only Hillary's Tally

with the Polsters that is in question...

WHITEWASH! How could Edwards and Kucinich, too...keep the same numbers with the polls and only Clinton's numbers change?

And tonight the Pundits are saying it's the RACE VOTE or the FEMALE TEARS VOTE AMONGST "OLDER WOMEN."

Something doesn't smell good here... :-(

[bvar22]

9. K&R

For wider exposure and validation.

[Occam Bandage]

10. No, but I was sober.

If you have proof, though, please show it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. I'll swear that something like that happened in 2000, but I've never seen video of it.

You'd think that if they were going to rig things that they wouldn't allow any of it to get to the air.

If you've got video, put it on youtube and post the URL!

[Proud_Lefty]

17. Unfortunately, I lost it

I'm not so electronically inclined with these gadgets. I jumped on DU to see if anyone else caught it and was talking about it, but didn't see anything. I think I'll record all future primaries, but as someone pointed out, it could have something to do with typos. But honestly, knowing the way the media and system has treated Dennis Kuchinich and his honesty in this campaign, I doubt typos really had anything to do with it.

[cindyw]

13. There was a county where Obama showed 0% and Kucinich had like 1400

They fixed it. I watched it change myself on one of the sites that had votes by each polling site.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. Let's roll Tivo or tape at the next primary.

[qanda]

14. Here's what happened....

One county had Obama at zero and I believe they had given Kuchinich all of Obama's 812 votes. It was corrected shortly afterward, but I grabbed a screen capture of it:

[Proud_Lefty]

18. That sounds like it

It was an 800 drop in votes quite suddenly.

[1corona4u]

15. No,but I saw Biden's decrease by 100....

very weird indeed.

[antiimperialist]

16. From the New York Times

January 6th

As the primaries start in New Hampshire this week and roll on through the next few months, the erratic behavior of voting technology will once again find itself under a microscope. In the last three election cycles, touch-screen machines have become one of the most mysterious and divisive elements in modern electoral politics. Introduced after the 2000 hanging-chad debacle, the machines were originally intended to add clarity to election results. But in hundreds of instances, the result has been precisely the opposite: they fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices “flip” from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html

[alittlelark]

20. 81% of the votes were tabulated by Diebold

Their new name is "Premier Election Systems". The Diebold name carried too much baggage.


New name same company!!!! What could be better?

[flyarm]

21. and once Edwards were at 19% but then were reduced to 17% all the while obama and Hillary's were

going up and changing in percentages..but edward stayed still!

the stink is repulsive!

fly

[KaryninMiami]

25. That's what we were saying here- that something was not right.

Not only did John Edwards not move past 17 on any poll- but how could every single poll be predicting a different outcome? Something was really odd.

[bobthedrummer]

22. There are several discussions in GD on similar topics n/t

[mikelgb]

24. I thought there was something fishy

I saw the percentages but did not notice the numbers....

screen caps?

[2rth2pwr]

27. Yes, they are so good at stealing votes and managing the polling process

but every damn election they leave the proof right in front of our eyes.

[Clintonista2]

30. ...

:spray:

[Anouka]

29. Kick and Recommending until tape is produced.

Are you able to tape your tape, and post it somewhere?

No one's votes should go down.

[New Earth]

31. oh god not this again

:banghead:

I hope people here stay on this until someone figures out what happened.

[KoKo]

33. I saw a post about it here on DU...and it's not surprising....

:-(